Redbreast 12 a blend or not?

I have been trying to get a straight answer about whether Redbreast 12 yo Pure Pot Still whisky is a blend or not. I have found that Wikipedia lists it as a non-blend, as do a number of Irish Whisky enthusiast sites. Whisky Mag lists it as a blend. Does anyone have a definitive answer to this question...I'm trying to decide if I want to try this stuff or not (i.e: buy a bottle in my language)...it seems everyone agrees is quite a good whisky.

Re: Redbreast 12 a blend or not?

It's a tricky one to explain for me (not an expert on Irish whiskey but I'm sure others will clarify) but here goes....... RB12 is not a blend as such but in a unique category of 'Pure Pot Still' which is a particular type of Irish Whiskey.

A blend in its simplest sense is a mixture of different whiskies, and as such made from different grains, whereas 'Pure Pot Still' is made from only barley - but they use barley that is both malted and unmalted.

So to compare it to Scotch whisky it is like a single malt but significantly different in that unmalted barley is also used in the distillation process.

Re: Redbreast 12 a blend or not?

However an Irish Potstill whiskey is where they make up a single mash of malted and un-malted barley together in the mash tun and usually can be anything from 30-70% to 60-40% malt to un-malted barley.

It is from this mash mix that the whiskey is distilled therefor getting one single spirit run of PotStill which is then aged and sold as Pure Potstill irish Whiskey as it technically cannot be called a single malt.

You then have Potstill blends such as Powers which as you would think a blend of Pure Potstill and grain whiskey, but are not named as such.

Hope this clarifies the situation but it does seem to be the most misunderstood side of Irish Whiskey. I won't even go into what they did back in the olden days

Re: Redbreast 12 a blend or not?

It's an unusual one, because it's only made at Midleton. Most people don't know if it is still just made in pot stills, or if it is partially run through a column still. Or, if it's triple-distilled or even partially quadruple distilled.

When the malted and unmalted barley are mixed, I believe that the enzymes in the malted barley turns the starches in the unmalted barley into sugar - malt. So even the unmalted barley becomes malted, to some degree.

And they used to use more than one grain in it. There would be be very small amounts of rye and oats in the older stuff. This older stuff tastes very different to what is being made today.

Re: Redbreast 12 a blend or not?

Blend or not, I bought a bottle yesterday for 41$ CDN and tried a dram immediately after work. It really is an extraordinary whiskey, quite different from most single malts, but a very fine stand in if you don't want to exhaust your supply of expensive stuff.

The green bottle always throws me off, it's so hard to judge the colour before buying. However, I suppose this is a brand-tool for the Irish spirits business, maybe they're trying to draw the eye to the "green" in Ireland?

I was quite happy to discover this one...once again, Whisky Mag's tasting notes win the day.

Re: Redbreast 12 a blend or not?

And in reference to another topic, maybe when the RB15 is all gone you can turn some 12yo into the 15yo in your little barrells.

Which is a sentance that would make no sense in any other context.

Which reminds me of something I said over the weekend. My 4 year old was throwing his underpants around the house on Saturday and as I said to him "Give it up. Last time you were throwing your undies around they landed on the uplighter and went on fire" Now there's a sentance you don't get to say every day. And yet in my house it makes perfect sense.

Absolutely nothing to do with this topic but, but, em, oh yeah, I was drinking a redbreast at the time. See it's all connected.

Re: Redbreast 12 a blend or not?

Well it looks like everyone has answered this question, but thought I would add my two cents. Redbreast 12 year is a Pure Pot Still, not a blend. There really are only two pure Pot Still's still out there today, and that is RB12, and Green Spot. They are made of both Malted, and Unmalted barely. I do know of a good site that explains all the diffences if anyone is intrested. try out http://www.bestdamnwhiskey.comor http://www.irishwhiskeynotes.com I found both site very informative.

Re: Redbreast 12 a blend or not?

by Deactivated Member » Mon Apr 07, 2008 8:39 pm

Bruichladdict wrote:I have been trying to get a straight answer about whether Redbreast 12 yo Pure Pot Still whisky is a blend or not. I have found that Wikipedia lists it as a non-blend, as do a number of Irish Whisky enthusiast sites. Whisky Mag lists it as a blend. Does anyone have a definitive answer to this question...I'm trying to decide if I want to try this stuff or not (i.e: buy a bottle in my language)...it seems everyone agrees is quite a good whisky.

If I'm reading you right - you have heard that Redbreast is a good whisky and you want to know whether or not to try it. But you want to be sure it isn't a blend because you don't want to buy a blended whisky. Is that right?

If so, please don't be afraid of the "b" word. A good whisky is a good whisky - and if enough people tell you it's good then it probably is - whether it is a blend or not. It's only relatively recently that distillers have persuaded drinkers in some markets that single malts are high quality and blends are low quality. This is certainly far from an accurate depiction, although it makes marketing simpler. Obviously, the cheap blends are generally cheap for a reason - but even then they can sometimes be perfectly reasonable. Expensive blends can sometimes knock the spots off single malts. But this, in any case, really is applicable only to Scotch. Irish and other whiskies have never been as hung up on singleness. Blend can mean anything - whether a blend of whiskies from different distilleries and made from different ingredients (e.g. Black Bush) or can be blends of "the same" whisky but from different cask. It is a term that has never really been pejorative.

But come at whisky with an open mind. Judge it by what you have in the glass in front of you - not by what the label may or may not say. And please don't ever think a whisky is beneath you - we all learn from every dram, whether it is a good un or a bad un.

Re: Redbreast 12 a blend or not?

Re: Redbreast 12 a blend or not?

Pure pot still Irish whiskey came about when many Irish distillers malted only a portion of the mash. This may have been to save costs, but it produced a final whiskey which was the most popular in the world in the late 1800's. Over 85% of Irish make was of this type in 1886.

An Irish Government law enacted in 1950 stated that Pure Pot still Irish whiskey must be produced in Pot stills only from a mash of cereals ( unmalted) as are ordinarily grown in Ireland (barley oats rye or wheat) saccharified from a diastase of malted barley. This law was repealed in 1969 leaving producers free to use the description "Pure Pot still" on any whiskey distilled in Pot stills in Ireland, even single malt. Only tradition and the purchasing power of consumers preserves what I believe is among the best whiskey type in the world. Tastes are of liquorice and aniseed with a wild vapour aroma. Only 2 expressions remain under the Jameson Label make at Middleton by Irish Distillers wiz: Redbreast and Mitchell's Green Spot made from 40% malted barley and 60% unmalted barley. The production is in private so there is no way of knowing if pot stills are exclusively used. The excellent whiskey thus produced is most likely made by correct traditional pot still methods. Descriptions such as "Pure Pot Still Single Malt Irish whiskey" is the same as saying "A 2 storied bungalow or a 3 wheeled bicycle". It is a contradiction in terms. A whiskey made from malt only cannot be called Pure Pot still. The confusion comes from the fact the malt is also make in pot stills traditionally, but to be Irish Pure pot still make, the mash must be a mix of malted Barley and unmalted grain as is ordinarily traditionally grown in Ireland. Maize is not traditionally grown. Irish law says a blend must be the produce of more than one distillery. (" malts are a blend if made in 2 distilleries) In Scotland a blend is a mix of grain and malt. The only blend in Ireland is Bushmills (malt from Bushmills and Grains form Middleton). Pure Pot still Irish is similar to Bourbon where more than one grain type is mixed before distillation (never after).

So Pure Pot Still Irish whiskey is not a blend. It is a unique type of whiskey (which I suspect is very difficult to copy). It is a component of Powers (see label) and Jameson where it is mixed with grain make. As such it is the most popular whiskey type in Ireland. We try to keep it a secret in case supplies run short. If I could design a whiskey it would be pure pot still, but with the unmalted cereal comprising 20% oats, 20% wheat and the rest barley. Mitchell's Green stop is probably the nearest thing to our grandfather's whiskey, but Redbreast is very close also. It is not normally peat

Re: Redbreast 12 a blend or not?

I was recently coming back through Dublin Airport (2 days ago!) and am pleased to report that once through security I spotted a whisky duty free shop. It was great to see Irish brand whisky for sale in all its glory. With my copy of JM bible by my side my eyes fell towards the Redbreast 12 and 15 year old. The 15 year old was a bit pricey at 105 euros a bottle (duty free price is approx 80 euros) but I left it as I thought I may be able to get it cheaper elsewhere?.......Does anyone know anywhere in Edinburgh or around Scotland were I could pick up a bottle of 15 year old Redbreast?.....I wouldn't mind having a wee dram before I spend all that money....

Re: Redbreast 12 a blend or not?

I'm afraid that you have missed your opportunity with the 15yo. It is not available in the UK. The 12yo is readily available if not as good as the 15yo. You can find it in Waitrose at Morningside or Comely Bank for £25. RMW have it for a little more than that.

Re: Redbreast 12 a blend or not?

Unfortunately the premium whiskeys produced by Irish Distillers are very expensive. Standard Regbreast is 44.99 euros in the republic and 28 euros in Uk and Northern Ireland.

Green Spot is £36 sterling in the UK. That 15 year old Redbreast was part of a limited run at 43% abv. It should be splendid stuff and worth the 105 euro tag for the experience alone. Dont know why they wont produce more pure pot still whiskey. Beware of Irish producers calling their make "pure pot still malt." Only Redbreast and Green Spot is Pure Pot Still.

In the 1960 Irish distillers put a new pure pot still whiskey on the market.The called it Crested Ten because it bore the Jameson Crest and was a 10 year old. The old people said it was terrific whiskey and went for it in the shops. Then in the 1970, they changed it to a blend of 65% pure pot still and a patient still grain blend. Its not popular now and is similar to Powers with a little more sherry wood. In any country other than Ireland they would have to remove the 10 from the label as its not 10 year old, its a con. But thats Ireland.

That 15 year redbreast should be among the very best whiskeys in the world. There is a vintage version of it 1973, in a off licence in Carrickmacross. Its 2000 euros. And according to the attendent, it it being sold.

At one time Powers, Jameson and many other irish whiskey was of the Pure pot still type. When the scottish producers began to use the patient still, the irish refused and emphasised theirs as Pure Pot still.

Pure pot still make tends to be less malty and less influenced by wood than malt.

Re: Redbreast 12 a blend or not?

Where are youi based Centrefire. You seem to have a keen interest in Irish Whiskey. Good to see more people into Irish. Feel free to pop in to IWS forum too.

centrefire wrote:In the 1960 Irish distillers put a new pure pot still whiskey on the market.The called it Crested Ten because it bore the Jameson Crest and was a 10 year old. The old people said it was terrific whiskey and went for it in the shops. Then in the 1970, they changed it to a blend of 65% pure pot still and a patient still grain blend. Its not popular now and is similar to Powers with a little more sherry wood. In any country other than Ireland they would have to remove the 10 from the label as its not 10 year old, its a con. But thats Ireland.

I personally would not be so critical and have no issue with the name Crested 10. I look at it as preserving a welknown brand name. Everybody knows it is a blend at this stage and no where on the label does it state 10 years of age or pretend to be. Further it is a home market brand and a steady seller but not a best seller and I don't think anybody is being mislead at this stage. I see it as a half way house between the Jameson regular and the Jameson 12yo.

centrefire wrote: Beware of Irish producers calling their make "pure pot still malt." Only Redbreast and Green Spot is Pure Pot Still.

I presume you are refering to Cooley here and the fact they produced Single Malt in Pot Stills and decided they could call it Pure pot still. This practice does not happen any more and I am confident you won't see it again. Cooley have learned their lesson on this after several notable industry experts condemed the practice.

centrefire wrote: That 15 year old Redbreast was part of a limited run at 43% abv. It should be splendid stuff and worth the 105 euro tag for the experience alone. Dont know why they wont produce more pure pot still whiskey.

That 15 year redbreast should be among the very best whiskeys in the world.

Redbreast 15yo is 46% and non chill filtered and it makes a huge difference in comparison to the 12yo. And yes it is amazing stuff and as you say easily one of the top 20 whiskies in the world.

Re: Redbreast 12 a blend or not?

Beware of Irish producers calling their make "pure pot still malt." Only Redbreast and Green Spot is Pure Pot Still.

I presume you are refering to Cooley here and the fact they produced Single Malt in Pot Stills and decided they could call it Pure pot still. This practice does not happen any more and I am confident you won't see it again. Cooley have learned their lesson on this after several notable industry experts condemed the practice.

So what's this then?Even if the label doesn't describe it as such it suggests the message isn't getting through!

Re: Redbreast 12 a blend or not?

I am in the north east part of the Irish republic and am interested in all good whiskey. I have a "bee in my bonnet" about Pure Pot still because it is a real tradition uniquely Irish drop. It is very distinctive in Redbreast form, but I fancy the Mitchells Green Spot too.

I take the point about Crested Ten. But I am sure you would agree that it is a plain enough drop. But I wondered why the old people held it in so high regard. Then I discovered it was originally Pure Pot Still. So they were no duds.

Also the Redbreast 15 yo. I thought it was a 43% but obviously its higher as you say. I never got a taste, being non chill filtered and no sugar colour, it has be a cracker. Pity its not more widely available and cheaper. Pure pot still should be Ireland's answer to Scotch Single Malt, and protected by laws, let me have your views on that.

In regard to Cooley. Each week in the Irish Sunday Independent "letter to the editor" page. Cooley offer 3 bottles of Tirconnell whiskey to the person with the best letter on current affairs. They describe it as "Tirconnell Pure Pot Still Single Malt Irish Whisley". See next weeks paper. My point is that if Malt begins to be described as Pure Pot still, then that devalues the term. There is nothing wrong with "Single malt Irish whiskey made in pots stills" of course. This begs the question of why does Cooley not actually make a real pure pot still whiskey?

Re: Redbreast 12 a blend or not?

The description of Pure Pot Still Irish is the result events which can easily confuse and or course lead to advantage being taken of the term. In the mid 1800's the scotch made Malt and the Irish made Old Irish both in Pot stills. In the late 1800's the scotts took to mixing malt with grain spirit which was made in continuous stills and called it a blend. The Irish stubornly refused to entertain the blends and appealed to the Royal Commission and won the first round, blends could not be described as whiskey.. The Irish use the term Pure Pot Still to differentiate their (superior) ????? !!!!! make from the (inferiour) ???!!! Scotch blends. Then the Scotts won on appeal and all could be called whiskey. It always went without saying that malt only make is produced in pot stills. Even to-day all malt is make in pot stills.

This was ensrined in Irish law in 1950 but removed in 1969. Only the Sale of Goods and supply of services Act cover it now and there is no case law.

My opinion is the the name Pure Pot Still, old Dublin and Old Irish whiskey should be protected in law because this is a uniquely Irish product and that Malt should have some other description. Of course most people do not know about this. My reason for going on about it here is to alert people and let the consummer decide. See Wikipedia on line encylopedia

Re: Redbreast 12 a blend or not?

There is certainly a strong case to be made for Protected Designation of Origin (PDO), (Protected Geographical Indication (PGI) or Traditional Speciality Guaranteed (TSG)) as set out in European law for the term Pure Pot Still.

By the way several labels still carry the 'pure pot still' designation such as Kilgeary (made by Cooley for Supervalu). Oddly Greenspot no longer carries it, and no one seems to know when it was dropped, although it has been confirmed that it is still a PPS.

Re: Redbreast 12 a blend or not?

I think you'll find the disagreement over what could be called whisk(e)y - culminating in the 1908 ruling - was between Pot Still producers and Grain producers rather than a Scottish-Irish issue. I'm pretty sure that Scottish Pot Still producers were considerably miffed by a ruling which they saw as a huge defeat.

In hindsight (which is always 20:20) I think the judgement was wrong and it is interesting to speculate where we might be today had the ruling been different. But essentially big business won out (as it usually does) and the big grain distillers spearheaded by the embryonic DCL (originally a conglomerate of grain distillers) won the legal argument. They probably could afford better lawyers.

Although Irish contributors seem to wish to to draw a veil over it the Irish were most certainly producing both grain whiskey and blends, although in lesser proportions. The overall structure of the 2 industiries was similar but with different emphasis. Just as Scottish grain production was concentrated in a relatively narrow strip in the central belt, so Irish grain was mainly made in Belfast and Derry - talking of course 32 counties at this time.

As to inferiority/superiority, on taste grounds that is wholly subjective but as far as 'the market' was concerned there is no doubt what the greater public preferred whatever pot still producers of either nationality might have wished.

Technically, malt is not NECESSARILY always produced in pot stills, there are examples from the last century of patent still malt and more recently at North of Scotland and Loch Lomond. Only in 2005 did the SWA redefine the term 'single malt' to tie it exclusively to the product of a pot still.

I don't know if there is an Irish equivalent to the SWA but it strikes me you could do with some similar industry regulation. There are plenty records of the PPS description mis-applied (see Magilligan 8yo, Lockes 8yo, also descriptions on RMW and Whiskyshop websites) - these are people you might expect would understand so if they can't be correct what chance the greater public?

Given the huge number of brands produced by Cooley have they REALLY never produced a PPS whiskey? (as opposed to labelling malt as such?) Did they not 'liberate' the old pot stills from Comber???

Re: Redbreast 12 a blend or not?

I hadn't heard that (about Old Comber). I know they own the stills from the old Daly Distillery in Tullamore. They have them at Kilbeggan. They also use one small still from there and have made one just the same. The large ones are not being used, at the moment at least.

About the pure pot still - sure lots of countries make whisky from only pot stills. Maybe the term should be pure pot still Irish ...

There was pure pot still (malted and unmalted mash) made in the lowlands at one stage, I believe.

Re: Redbreast 12 a blend or not?

FirewallXL5 wrote:Although Irish contributors seem to wish to to draw a veil over it the Irish were most certainly producing both grain whiskey and blends, although in lesser proportions. The overall structure of the 2 industiries was similar but with different emphasis. Just as Scottish grain production was concentrated in a relatively narrow strip in the central belt, so Irish grain was mainly made in Belfast and Derry - talking of course 32 counties at this time.

I'm not sure anyone was trying to draw a veil over this - a bit of a strong accusation, I think.

The irish industry was the bigger at the time, so probably made most noise about the issue - they also had more to lose. They (four Dublin distillers) did publish The Truths about Whisky etc. as middlemen were blending their whiskey, and the Scotch blended whisky was making inroads into Irish sales.

It seems to be Andrew Usher who started the aggressive marketing of blends, in Scotland in the middle of the 19th century. And it also seems that the column still was intially rejected by Irish distillers. I could have this wrong, of course.

And, in Jim Murray's Classic Irish Whiskey, it seems to suggest that Scottish distillers paved the way for blended whisky. Only the Cork distillers were keen on marketing a blend, albeit a little later on. It was later again adopted by more Irish distillers, like Tullamore.

Re: Redbreast 12 a blend or not?

Aidan wrote:I hadn't heard that (about Old Comber). I know they own the stills from the old Daly Distillery in Tullamore. They have them at Kilbeggan. They also use one small still from there and have made one just the same. The large ones are not being used, at the moment at least.

About the pure pot still - sure lots of countries make whisky from only pot stills. Maybe the term should be pure pot still Irish ...

There was pure pot still (malted and unmalted mash) made in the lowlands at one stage, I believe.

I believe that the pot stills from Old Comber are the ones that Cooley use to make their single malt. They have never made a pure pot still as far as the collective knowledge of we few Irish whiskey afficionados has been examined. And they have certainly never sold one. The dream would be that the Daly stills could be put into Locke's and a PPS be made along the lines of the old style i.e. with amounts of rye, wheat and oats in the mash.

Re: Redbreast 12 a blend or not?

cathach wrote:I believe that the pot stills from Old Comber are the ones that Cooley use to make their single malt. They have never made a pure pot still as far as the collective knowledge of we few Irish whiskey afficionados has been examined.

Re: Redbreast 12 a blend or not?

michael Foggarty wrote:i wouldnt be surprised that the term pure pot still disappears of the labels of Irish Whiskey in the near future

I think that would be a real pity as it'd remove a vital link with the traditional individuality of Irish whiskey.

I din't know if that small still they have is from Daly's of Tullamore. I checked their 2007 annual report and the websites and all they say is it was last used in the 19th C and was refurbished by Forsyth's.

The big Daly stills could be re-used I'm sure. The verdigris on copper prevents further oxidation so underneath it they should be fine and could be done up. Forsyth's as well often copy the shapes of old stills in Scotland to ensure that replacements will produce the same flavour.

Re: Redbreast 12 a blend or not?

="michael Foggarty"][quote="cathach The dream would be that the Daly stills could be put into Locke's and a PPS be made along the lines of the old style i.e. with amounts of rye, wheat and oats in the mash.

Isnt the first still installed t Lockes an old Dalys one?

The ones on display could never be recommisioned, their in a heap[/quote]

The small still is a Daly one, and the new one is a copy.

I'm not sure, but unless the copper is worn so thin it's dangerous to subject it to any pressure, I'm sure the old large stills could be used again. Even if there were thin spots, they could be repaired, I'm sure.

Re: Redbreast 12 a blend or not?

First: Do we agree that the Malted barley/unmalted grain whiskey make in Ireland in Pot Stills is a type of whiskey traditionally unique to Ireland and is the only whisky which is so unique? If so then is it worth identifying and protecting? - if the term "pure pot still Irish" is causing grieve, why not invent a new name - Original Irish - Old Irish - Finn McCool's Irish - 19th century type Irish - . "Mahogony Gaspipe Irish whiskey".

Traditionally the term Pure Pot Still meant this type of whiskey. Burnard referred to it in every dsitillery he found it. But sometimes called it Old Dublin and Old Irish. He referred to Malt as Malt and grain as grain. He found at least one grain distilery (I think Leginiel) Belfast. Jim Murray wrote to Cooley complaining about them using the term on their "Connemara Single Malt". So he seems to be signing off the same hymn sheet.

In respect to the malted/unmalted make said to be produced in Scotland, can the writer of this claim point out where it was found by Burnard on his distillery tour or Scotland in the mid-1800's . I cannot find it.

I agree about Mitchel's green spot. This has to be the least undersold whiskey. It is Pure pot still all right and tastes just like it. But there is no mention about this on the label. Perhaps its to avoid competing with Redbreast. Middleton were not obliged to produce it for Mitchels and could dictate terms, I suppose.